1. Suit for partition of ancestral house — Dispute over shares of heirs after death of original owner — Validity of sale of share exceeding legal entitlement. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1365
1996(6) Supreme 461
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. Singh and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Anand Dev Puri & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Guriqpal Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 1989
Decided on 30-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Harbans Lal, Sr. Advocate, and P.N. Puri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Manoj Swarup and Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocates.
In the absence of a proven partition, a co-sharer in inherited property cannot validly transfer a share exceeding their actual legal entitlement. A vendor's transfer is limited to their own share; thus, a co-sharer with a 1/7th interest cannot sell a 1/3rd share of the joint property.
Headnote:PARTITION-Suit for separate possession by partition of house-House in suit belonged to plaintiff father-Father after his death left behind him his widow, three sons and four daughters-After death of widow, property would devolve to three sons and four daughters, each having 1/7th share in the same-First appellate Court patently committed a serious error in holding that three sons of deceased were owners of house in suit only on basis of some municipal entry ignoring all other evidence-Defendant, one of the sons of deceased could not have sold out 1/3rd specified portion of house in absence of any partition amongst the share holders. (Para 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs contend equal inheritance among sons and daughters — Defendant claims private partition among sons granting one-third share each, justifying sale of one-third share. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Evidence proves property devolved equally to sons and daughters — Municipal entries cannot override overwhelming oral and documentary evidence regarding inheritance and lack of partition. (Para 5 , 7 )
4. A co-sharer in joint property cannot sell a specific portion larger than their actual share in the absence of a legal partition. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — Judgments of first appellate court and High Court set aside — Trial Court's preliminary decree for partition restored. (Para 8 )
6. Can a co-sharer sell a specific portion of a joint property exceeding their legal share without a partition?
No. In the absence of a partition among shareholders, a co-sharer can only sell their own undivided share. Any sale of a specific portion exceeding that share is invalid to the extent of the excess. (Para 7 )
7. Does a municipal entry prove ownership or partition of a joint family property over other evidence?
No. A municipal entry alone is insufficient to establish ownership or private partition when there is overwhelming oral and documentary evidence proving the property belonged to a common ancestor and devolved among all legal heirs. (Para 7 )
8. What is the effect of a sale by a co-sharer to a third party in a joint property?
The purchaser is entitled only to the share actually owned by the vendor. If the vendor only possesses a specific fraction, the purchaser cannot acquire a larger share regardless of the sale deed's terms. (Para 5 , 7 )
JUDGMENT
Faizan Uddin, J.-This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated July 22, 1988 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment dated September 30, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur setting aside the judgment and preliminary decree dated May 30, 1884 passed by the sub-Judge, 1st Class Malerkotla for possession by partition of the house in suit in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants-respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5 herein to the extent of 1/7th share each in the house in dispute.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants brought a suit for separate possession by partition of the house in suit to the extent of their share against the defendants respondents by contending that the house in suit belonged to their father Ishar Mal who died on 10.1.1960 leaving behind him his widow Dhan Devi, since deceased, three sons namely, Anand Dev, plaintiff/appellant No. 1, Bhushan Kumar Puri (defendant No. 2, respondent No. 3 herein), Rajinder Pal Puri (defendant No. 1, respondent No. 2 herein) and three daughters, namely, Gyanwati, plaintiff-appellant No. 3, Sita Devi (defendant No. 3, respondent No. 4 herein), Nand Rani, (defendant No. 4, respondent No. 5 herein) and Pushpa Devi, plaintiff-appellant No. 2. The plaintiffs case was that on the death of their father Ishar Mal each of the eight heirs named above became owner of 1/8th share in the house in question, being the widow, sons and daughters of late Ishar Mal. According to the plaintiffs, on the death of their mother Dhan Devi the remaining three sons and four daughters of Ishar Mal inherited 1/7th share each in the house in suit. But the defendant- respondent Rajinder Pal Puri one of the sons of Ishar Mal claiming to be the owner of 1/3rd share in the house sold out the same to the defendant respondent No. 1, Guriqbal Singh by a registered sale-deed dated December 2, 1977. The plaintiffs appellants took the plea that Rajinder Pal Puri had only 1/7th share in the house and he could not have validly sold 1/3rd share in the house to respondent No. 1 Guriqpal Singh.
3. The defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4, namely, Rajinder Pal Puri, Sita Devi and Nand Rani filed a common written statement admitting that the house in dispute belonged to Ishar Mal and after his death it was inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 and 4.
4. Defendant Rajinder Pal Puri admitted that he had sold the said portion of the house in dispute to defendant No. 5, respondent No. 1 herein, Guriqbal Singh but he took further plea that it was a fictitious sale to teach a lesson to his sons and wife who had become disobedient. The defendant respondent No. 1, Guriqbal Singh filed a separate written statement by traversing all the plaint allegations and took the plea that the house in question only belonged to the plaintiff No. 1, Anand Dev Puri and the defendants Rajinder Pal Puri and Bhushan Kumar Puri, the three sons of deceased Ishar Mal, each having 1/3rd share in the same who had affected private partition among themselves and each one of them had separate possession of 1/3rd share of the house and that Rajinder Pal Puri was the owner in possession of 1/3rd share which he sold out to him by a registered Sale Deed dated December 2, 1977 with delivery of possession.
5. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit and passed a preliminary decree for separate possession by partition holding that the house belonged to Ishar Mal and after the death of Ishar Mal and his widow it was inherited by his three sons and four daughters named above, each of them having 1/7th sahre in the same. The Trial Court also on evaluation of evidence took the view that there was no private partition amongst the three sons of deceased Ishar Mal and that the defendant respondent Guriqbal Singh had failed to prove that he was bonafide purchaser without hav
